tv [untitled] February 1, 2013 10:30am-11:00am PST
contract with you [spelling?] and the answers that they are giving don't change despite the concerns that have been heard over and over again and my concern and i share the objective of local build out and of keeping the rates low and i think it will be wonderful if we can figure out how do that however local power just keeps saying use prop h bonds for build out despite the fact that repeatedly. city attorney came to l.a. s c o and explained why it's not probably and they are not saying it today but that is the proposal for local build out and the city attorney has explained that it's for private use. and prop h is public bonds. public funds. second, the co general facility proposal the combined power is not only is that a continued investment in fossil fuels and it's private, local power has been
saying for years now that it doesn't identify and know the sites that those cogent facilities would be located on but they don't think there would be any problem with seek away because it [spelling?] aught to be extent and they don't think there are any citing or permitting issues and they are still saying this at the done annoy where those location are and they are still talking about hetch hetchy power and i trust your staff with i know it's the same issue for all of these times and as a permitting environmental lawyer, i hear the proposal for local build-out would you tell any understanding without any understanding that has been given to site and permanentings and that is a
huge under takings and certainly without annoy nog what they are proposing. thank you for your time. >> thank you. jason freed l.a. s c o staff on laugh behalf of supervisor chair comp poe and is one comment that wanted to give on this part of the presentation was that making sure that whatever is good much local power's presentation that we are trying to use that to implement that we are not flow throwing down the launch of program and this is key for all of my commissioners and not slowing down the program we need to get this program lamped and up and running as quickly as possible and if there are things that can be utilized in his presentation great but if not we should continue to move forward and there is item a on the agenda and there is a presentation on that are you still doing that presentation or is that being moofgd to another date? because i have some comment on
the not to exceeds from administrator finns presentation. >> and so for my understanding it was there for discussion, we plan to go back and give more information and have the commission vote on -- are you giving a presentation on it though. >> no, okay now i'll give you some quick comments i'm. . the not to exceed rate staff currently has the recovery of the $13.5 million that is being set aside as the start-up funds that money can actuallily be looked at in two different waysphosis not required by the board of supervisors they said cover as much as you can as wishly as you can but not harmful to the program and the way that you are looking at 14.4 smldz in two pots of pun money one is set aside for she'll if case we need it repay them and
the other is the operational costs that are going to be will and so 4.5 never gets returned backback to the p uc's general comprise department and is locked away in the fund and if you want to recover it overt course of she'll contract. that is perfectly acceptable the 9 million does get returned back to the p uc should the program be prosperous and therefore doesn't believe had a we need to be worrying about that nine millions and we should not be inincorporating that? and you will see in your packets that there is a penny extra for 1.5 and you can reduce that penny to a third of a penny as what is needed for rate of recovery for what i think would satisfy the board's request of making sure we receive that money back because the she'll money comes back and the 9 million-dollar you can start roverring that
year one every year you review that $9 million and you get part of that money back each other depending on what those rates are doing everything east and that is what we encourage you to do. >> this is an organic progress and that is why there is a draft easy louis and not a resolution for action. i think we are talking all of this input with a full embrace of what we need to do. commissioner. >> i want to understand all of this because it's a lot of information. >> so in the not to exceed rates is this new information for and you would that in fact change the documents that we have looked at as far as the rates go and so would there be an adjustment. >> it doesn't and the key issue is as i mentioned before on average your selling power at four crypts and having to buy it at 7 cents and if you look over the last ten years how much hasp
net surplus we have had it's very little to nothing. so the issue is we have an amazing system but when he have a lot of water, we have a lot of water and create a lot of extra power, we have many years where we don't have a lot of water during the dry years so just take a ten-year average and looking at the hetchy portfolio and everything we have generated and sold and dry months and none seasonal months and then netting it all out there is not this firm net always availability and so for us to keep to have tot hamping order to mitigate risk the only way to do that is to contract with she'll that provides firm knowable fixed rates and so i wish i could tell you wait another week or two weeks but unless we have more storage capacity up at hetchy, i can't testimony you that and tell you that and i'll
defer to ms. hale. may be you can address this somewhat briefly because we want to move on from this item and can you tell us and especially our last co commissioners proposition about the h bonds? it's a long question for a short answer but how are you proposing to pay for the local build out. >> we plops that h bonds be used for potentially the whole build out consisting of two major categorize of bonds one being taxable bonds and those would be for private benefit on commercial buildings but then, tax exempt bonds for p uc owned generator and is that would include the wind farm and other large generation in the city and so this approach was confirmed by pea body and l.a. s c o year ago and the use for taxable bonds is legal and there is no
basis as far as i have ever heard that it's illegal to issue revenue bonds that are taxable and it comes down to whether they are taxable and in this case we have divide them accordingly and we also think there is a role for tax equity, investment in this program and so we are looking at that as an alternative source of financing and the h bond authority was called the solar neighborhoods charter amendment and the whole idea of that was finance customer opened in san francisco and so nothing new in that and nothing that local power has invented in the hearings that is all in the record. >> feinstein your club wants to say something. welcome. >> thank you commissioners. i would like to say something
that this is agenda is very confusing and so if this is the last time that we are going to to be talking about this issue today --. >> today yes. because i was inter impression that there was a staff presentation follow this but since this is it -- all right i have been spending the last 20 seconds figuring out what is goinggoing on and so i'm the.president of the baby chapter club and we are excited toward about this because it's a real answer towards clime climate change but we are concerned that the routes that you are take something going to be one of failure because if the rates are that high the people will opt out despite our liberal population, there is only so much money in the world.
and whenever they had the last meeting proposed 100% eye higher per kilowatt hour when you go out to the public -- that is getting to the point of none acceptability and asking for failure. local power has been hired by you guys and has come up with proposals that would lower the rate to an acceptable level and yet staff doesn't seem to be listening to them, we have heard today, consistent rejection of proposals in terms of starting build out right away and looking at hetch hetchy and yes you don't always have it wet but from what i understand the local power did with the technical committee they have looked at the fact that it fluctuates and have incorporated that into their analysis and yet there seem to resistance and so staff is not looking at build out or hetch hetchy or these
alternatives that help lower the rates and if you insist in not lowering the rates then you are asking this to be another dead prom trying to get past p g and e and trying to get green power into san francisco and just wanting that group of resist toes that say climate change is a problem but we are not going to solve it because we are stuck in our ways, well i care very much about climate change i have a ten -years-old daughter and i worry about her future and you have a chance to make a difference. >> so i urge you to take the best of o p i and put it into your scenario so we can go with the rates and not just with she'll. thank you. >> eric brooks? he is now deferring to jest during ban acronym. >> thank you very much aim conservation organizer with the san francisco bay bay club and
i'm here to represent the bay area. this is the first time i have seen this clean -- air water proposal and i just wanted to respond to this quickly, the way that this lays out the build-out program it basically says after the she'll contract. then we will start initiating the build out program and the she'll contract it also states in the she'll contract is a four and-a-half year bridge to a long-term diversified portfolio and so the way that i see she'll contract is a temp bridge to get from point a to b and so if we say let's put up in temporary bridge and wait until the life of that temporary bridge is gone has not going to work and so we need to put up the she'll contract for four and-a-half
years and then start building our permanent bridge so when that life span is over we can let everyone cross the bridge to a clean future. so that is just i wanted to mention that because i don't think we can use that as a bridge to get to where we want to go and that is our temporary bridge request to get there and in addition,, i really like the intent to include feed -- and i like that in the program and just saying that you intend to use that in the program we need to see a lot more information on how that is going to be implemented and in addition, i have been only part of thee meetings for about two months and i really think that we need to ensure that staff has the capacity to really figure out a way to bring these two together. so you know, really putting pressure on accelerating the hiring of a new director for
clean power would be excellent and soy urge and so i urge you to do that. >> thank you. >> do you have any questions, no, ms. brooks. >> bear with me my voice is almost gone. i kneel for you. >> i feel for me too. so in our approach san francisco green party local grassroots organization in our city i have been working on this for eight years with my wife and we have a fundamental problem here that must be solved and it's coming to head right now, today and that is that especially since mike campbell left, your staff doesn't understand what is in front of them for local power, they do a lot of good work on a lot of different things when it
comes to local distributed generation of local clean energy, they are not getting this. and we have really got do something to pick up on what jessica was talking about and we need to hire a director for the staff that is deeply knowledgeable about the local distributed generation and how to implement it through this program otherwise we are going to lose this program. and i want to get back to the key problem is that for many many years through many ordinance and is resolutions both the board of supervisors and yourselves have directed your staff to work on the local power model and bring
it forward. these resolution and is ordinances did not direct power enterprise staff to battle with the contractor, who which, is far more enter the than they are on these issues and resist what they are proposing at every turn i'm sorry to be so critical, but this is very serious as you were saying commissioner mr. president, the future of our children and grandchildren is at stake here. and just to refer also to the packet that jessica referred to the presentation about the s f u centimeters's approach to a local build out is unreal spell the staff is proposing to build large solar farms at a distance that will power of which will city still flow over p g and e
transmission lines and will have those transmission cost is stull the most expensive way to do renewables to local power plants is diverse creates thousands of local jobs and is based on integrated resource efficiency, wind, co generation, et cetera these are -- the staff did not up to speed on how to do this and we need to change that that is absolutely crucial, thanks. >> thank you eric, any other comments commissioner vid dour? courtney and moran -- two questions one is where the program director for c c a and i conquer that we need someone who can support our local staff on this i think michael has a comment. michael conly deputy
general manager we are in the process of getting that approved and it's working it's way through the mayor's office now ran and the department of human resource and we home to hope to have to posted and filled and i know we are recruiting for that as well. >> when? as soon as the mayors office releases it. >> can we express urgency on that especially from hearing from supervisor camp poes that he didn't want this program to lag and i feel quite strongly that we need to get that division filled in order to move this program. >> any urgency on your behalf would be greatly welcome i. oh, you are not done. >> i can't remember my other point. all right i'm a little discouraged by the conversation but, on the one hand, we have to treat this pretty delicately and dig a little deeper into the details so we can dive in and on the other hand, i expect jason
to be at every single meeting that we assess this at because i see urgency in terms of not delaying but language and i do have a question young speaker from the syria club chapter mentioned the bridge and the other bridge and that was good because i need those visuals but if they show a bridge of four and-a-half year temporary bridge, i want to know from staff if this speaker was on the mark which she indicated that hen and only then would the build out begin at the conclusion of the she'll contract, i think? i'm not certain that is the case but i would like to hear from staff. that is not our intent had we made the null presentation
it would have been clearer and we will have dhonsed to the financial community that we have a reliable revenue stream and investments so that we can have our local build out and the local build out utility scale local build out and we have already received approval to appropriate $2 million towards our go solar s s program and $2 million toward energy efficiency for our c c a program and we know from day one we will begin the aspects of the local build out and energy efficiency and rooftop solar for residents that apply to go to the program and as a c c operator we will have access to the program offerings in the state sponsored programs for energy efficiency so we will on day one be marketing those program
components as well. so we see that from day one, beginning. the so the bridge is a temporary bridge. a customer-base as it gross, you will recall had a we envision through the she'll energy north america service pro provision then we will layer in new customers resource so we will have opportunities do local build with post new customerrings coming in. we are starting small to keep our risk profile low with our expectation that we would increase the ability to have local build-out as we bring on more customers from the large residential and commercial base here in san francisco.
>> mr. mayora [spelling?]. >> this happen helpful and there is a tie in between face one and two and that phase two may be necessary to make the finances of phase one work and i think you just disa abused me of that, that phase one depends not on the local build out but the available of the hatchy power and a different use of a different kind of reek and i would like to focus on that. i think that when we visit this again it's going to be to approval not to exceed rate. a local power folks have been saying that the not to exceed rates that we are proposing will gawfort failure of the program and we have all compressed concern about the size of the premium involved in that and they have also said that there is a way out of had a and that
if you make hatchy power available if you use a different kind of reek, then um, you can reduce or eliminate the premium. i think we need to focus on that and this is in no disrespect to the local build out but i think it confuse the discussion at this point. there is a lot of variables that were introduced as part of that discussion that we have not had the time to sort through and really understand. and i think it distracts us from what the decision is that be in front of us in a couple of week's time. when we go out for the program that anticipates the not to exceed rate that have been proposed or not and so i would ask staff and lp i and whoever else needs to be involved in had to focus narrowly on that and we have all said and i believe all of us when we say that if we can figure out how do a local build out that we would like to did
that as soon as we can barbara just reiterated that it's not the intent to wait until the she'll contract is over but we need to figure it out and if we don't figure it out, we may never do it and so i think we need to postpone the discussion about the local build out because i think it's distracting. >> meeting after meeting, i think i'm not being to say anything because it's going to be disruptive but today i'm going to say something and it starts with page one where the 70-wide customer pole has been once again delayed? what are we talking about here we have a plan to do something but we have no idea what other customer base is. we have no idea if people want do this or not when we
last checked the survey which was a wrong if i am ago which was going which is when it was a p g rate or lower it was great and challenged them because a lot of the areas were park areas where indeed we have no customer and is so i think that i do not personally want to entertain another meeting without the proper customer survey and i think it should be done like this. i don't think so it should be done as a group survey, i think it should be done individually, i think people should be told if your bill is this now, under p g d e whatever we think that rate increase might be which we will know soon, i believe. what the new rate will be under clean power. this is important why are we putting our heads in the
ground and presenting like well of course, we have customers? i have challenge that. i challenge that. >> i think you get the sense of the commission and i think you get the sense of the public comments. and i think we are going to let unless somebody else has anything to say, i think we are ready to move on. okay? any other new business? all right, the meeting is adjourned.
>> my name is phil ginsburg and the general manager of the san francisco parks and rec department and i want to welcome everybody to the 83rd annual holiday tree lighting. happy holidays to you all. this is san francisco's official holiday tree right behind us, uncle john's tree and over 100 years old, and tonight it sports over 550 christmas holiday lights.